government

If we had to choose one of the Presidential Candidates, who would the actors choose as their director?

Actors want their show to run smoothly? Yes or No? ALWAYS YES. DUH.

Now, if we could choose any Presidential Candidate, President or Ex-President as an example of the best director of a show called America, we would all choose Ronnie Reagan. Hands down, two-thumbs up, right?

Did you know that Ronald Reagan was an actor raised as a liberal Democrat? Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was his inspiration for continuing to get involved in politics throughout his life despite his day job of being an actor. He was also a director though. Not of any shows that I know of, but as the President of his class in college and then as the President of the Screen Actors Guild he showed he had the wherewithal to be a man of many talents. He even took on a business role when he held a Sunday show traveling around informing people about GE products and speaking with executives of other companies in regards to business in America. However, eventually Democrats persecuted him for the conservative views he was inspired by such as anti-communism, fiscal responsibility and anti-big government. So he was forced to change his affiliation to the Republican Party. Remember that last part, because it’s pretty important.

Well, we can’t go back to the 80’s as bad as we want another chance to wear parachute pants, we just can’t. So given our choices today, why are celebrities and actors seeming to side with someone who ironically may not be their actual first choice if they had to decide who would run their show if it were an actual show? Still with me? Why would they be drawn to say they are inspired by someone and so therefore say it is a good idea for all of America to be inspired by them as well? Why would they do that? Let me explain.

While actors tend to be very popular they are not “cliquey.” They are popular and they do what is popular but tend to remain fairly independent. They have a lot of friends, but not too many “best” friends if you know what I mean.

And if there is one thing that is true about all actors, it is that they love to be in the limelight. They can’t help it. It’s in their DNA and what gives them the ability to be actors. Like a moth to a flame, etc. etc. This is what draws them to President Obama. He offers them the limelight, not necessarily popularity, but that doesn’t really matter to them. Consequences, smonchemences. Let me explain, further. If Obama invites you to the White House for dinner, nothing else matters. Fans opinions have nothing over being a part of something exclusive. Actors learn early on that fans opinions are not of their control anyway. They say what is popular, and their fans do it. Not the other way around.

So how do I know so much about the psychology of actors? “No comment” as they say in Hollywood when there is something people actually want them to say. Let’s just say I spent a lot of time in the world of theatre/radio/television and film in my younger days. My main job was on stage but I dabbled in the world of stage crew too. And I have to say I definitely preferred the backstage crew. Being in the back was like being in reality. We were building; running things, making sure the show went perfectly. On stage you just had to learn your lines and take direction well while constantly staying “in character”. Actually, you didn’t even have to get the lines right until absolutely necessary. Procrastination was an assumed natural handicap.

The one thing that I know we all wanted though, was whether you were an actor or on stage crew or light crew or costume crew, prop crew, or on whatever crew, you wanted the show to run well and the only way to do that was having an excellent director. The director knows how to do everything. He/she knows how to act and direct. He/she makes sure the house crew markets the show immensely and that the tickets are sold and not given away. They’re in charge of the budget of the show. They are in charge of what the costumes and the set will eventually be designed like. He/she knows how to build stuff and has to know how to show others how to build stuff. He/she needs to know the difference between stage left and stage right. He/she needs to be able to tell the actors when they are about to fall off the stage.

I know everyone would like to think of their president as someone they would also like to be friends with. Now, I would like to be friends with my director too, but at the same time I know he is going to give me criticism when I need it and can fire my ass at any moment. And I hope to God he would have the balls to fire anyone who sucked, because it would make the show suck. Not even a tiny little bit of crap can be tolerated in Broadway, so why would we tolerate that in the big show we call America?

Ronald Reagan was a great actor and a great director, so to speak, diplomat and humanitarian. He could do it all, could he not? We want him back so bad it hurts! We all want him back. If Ronnie could come back through Theresa Caputo from time to time we would vote for her. But we can’t. So here’s the thing. Republicans worship President Ronald Reagan for a reason. They identify with him. In other words they want to be like him and represent him proudly. More to the point, we want our leaders to be like him. Romney is not Reagan, but he represents and is a part of a whole team that is all about what Reagan believed in; running the show well.

Now, here’s the moment of truth. Who would be the better director if we were putting on a show called America? Would you hire President Obama or Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney to direct your show? I have to say, just going by the man’s experience, I would definitely cast Obama in the show, because he’s a great actor, but I don’t know if he even knows what a fresnel is or what it does. Therefore, I couldn’t even count on him to approve a good lighting design. However, since Mitt Romney has directed such things in the past like oh, THE OLYMPICS; one of the biggest shows in the world, I’d have to say he’d get the job. For some reason I just get the feeling President Obama wakes up every day and says “Macbeth” before his first sip of coffee.

Well, Lacee, you say. This is not a Broadway show this is reality. This is a reality show, baby. Real people don’t run on scripts.

And to that I retort: I think it is a play and we do run on scripts that we write out for ourselves every day. We depend on our leaders and caretakers to keep our lives going in the right direction hence the very real need for someone to be helping with all that, a director. A real President of the United States is a job that is one that most certainly is if not more than equivalent to a title of Director. Besides reality shows aren’t really reality either, are they? I mean really. I’m just sayin’.

I think it’s about time someone from the Republican campaign just took the time to lay it all out there. Just tell the people what is up with what Republicans believe. I’m not Karl Rove or anything, but I think it ought to come from Mitt Romney himself and P.D.Q. Here’s what I would say if I were him.

Hello, my name is Mitt, and I’m a rich man. I’m standing before you and I admit it. Yes, my name is Mitt and I AM a rich man. I’ll own it.

There is certainly a lot of discussion out there about being rich or poor. That people who are rich will always be rich and that poor people will always be poor. Rich people do nothing for anybody but themselves and poor people can do nothing for themselves. Is that how you see it? Funny, I always thought America was about poor people who thought they could be rich if they really wanted to be and then did. America is where we break through those glass ceilings and say nothing is always the way it is.

Let me tell you about two sons I know. They both worked for Dell Computers way back before Dell was DELL. One man’s father was a middle to upper income earner, a CFO, while the other’s father came from Mexico as a migrant worker picking watermelons. One day these sons tell their fathers to invest in Dell because they see customized computers as the future. So the dads do this, each father taking what they think they can spend on the investment. Now you might imagine the migrant worker invested less than the wealthier CFO, but we’ll never know for sure. He was unable to speak much English and had no idea what a Dell computer was until his son started working there. Some years later, the CFO father grew “un-enchanted” with the computer company and decided to cash out of his slow if not motionless investment. The migrant worker dad on the other hand, out of love and respect for his son, faithfully kept what little money he had in Dell despite his poor means. He just worked harder to make ends meet. A couple years later, Dell Computers turned the whole technology market on its head. Stock price for this company skyrocketed and then split… then split again. The migrant watermelon picker was now a multi-millionaire and the CFO dad was just as moderately wealthy as he always was. In America, both had equal opportunity to be extremely wealthy despite their backgrounds. There was no insider trading- just faith in a good business.

In America, poor people can become rich people and rich people can become poor people. There is no guarantee; there is only the right of pursuit. Now if you take the right of pursuit away, by telling people there is no chance so why pursuit…all you do is guarantee that most people will try less to succeed and try less to pursuit great things. I pursued great things, became rich and now that allows me to help you, uninhibited by my background. I heard a citizen say the other day, to a reporter, “Well Mitt is rich. Why would he want to bother with such a hard job as the President?” And the answer to that is because I can. And I can do this without having to be tempted by corruption. No one could ever pay me enough to do harm to my country. There isn’t one thing I need or want in my life more than the opportunity to save this country from ruin.

There are people in charge right now that clearly have no idea what they are doing. The polls show we agree we are not heading in the right direction. I understand the Obama Administration’s pride and why they are so frustrated by this failure. They had a revolutionary plan. Unfortunately, it’s not a working plan. It never was. It has failed because they don’t want to admit when they are wrong and they don’t want help. Have you ever seen this show called Kitchen Nightmare’s with a chef by the name of Gordon Ramsey? This guy comes in and tells the restaurant owners either that their kitchen is filthy, they are spending too much money, or too little money on good produce, their behavior towards their employees and customers need to change, the food sucks or all of the above. In each case the restaurant is going bankrupt, the owners are in debt up to their ears, they’re about to lose their home because that’s tied to the restaurant too, but still… because they had such great plans for the restaurant and it was their “dream” they don’t want to listen. They get angry. They get violent. They literally hate this guy Ramsey because they think he’s all high and mighty. They think he couldn’t possibly understand where they are coming from, the whole bit. He comes in, gives them all these alternative options. He makes changes to the menu and the decor. Overnight he makes real physical changes and helps change their attitudes whether they will admit it will work or not and then faithfully waits to see what happens. Suddenly everyone likes the food and surprise, the business grows. The families end up naming their children after Gordon and all live happily ever after. Now Gordon Ramsey isn’t an American citizen, so he can’t be nominated for President, so don’t even try it! Now here’s the thing. He goes back six months later to check on them and those owners who decided to be stubborn and go back to their old way and not listen to the expert went under. Those who refused to try and trust someone they thought was “out of touch” with them, lost out big time. Never to be recovered.

I don’t want that to be America. I am rich because I’m good at business and we need to change the way we do business in America. Forgive me for saying this but the majority of America’s problems right now are about money. We need the poor and the rich working together in America like we used to. Now those who have the money are literally unable to use it. People cannot get the loans they need. Workers cannot get paid. The way America used to do business is no longer possible because of the way the current administration chooses to run it. I’ll say it again. They don’t know what they are doing. People don’t want to do business with us anymore, in other words, people are going to stop coming to our restaurant if we don’t get it functioning as a modern, fresh and comfortable place to be.

They are telling you that by doing things right, what the Republicans think is right, that it will put hard working minorities “back in chains.” There is no skin color of the Republican Party. Anyone who says there is, is backwards. They want you to look backwards too. Doing it over and over and over again is intolerable. The hatemongering has got to stop! If you took us all and stuck us in a blender we’d be a very nice shade of brown. Our expertise, our experience, our love for our country and the great things about it has no class status. “Wise men profit more by fools, than fools by wise men; for wise men avoid the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the good examples of wise men.” – CATO THE ELDER, c. 200 B.C. If you don’t want to work with rich people you’re missing out. If you don’t want to work with poor people, you’re missing out. Great educations come from working with both. That is why America has for centuries been so ahead of the curve. Our tolerance of each other, our abilities to make our differences work for us, make us smarter.

As people have actually tried to disrupt the harmony and our strides with civil rights, making us stop to question whether we should continue to keep working together, our country has become stagnate and numb. But here’s the trick. It’s only on the surface. The real truth about this whole campaign thing is that under all this media coverage of class warfare and anger, we are real people. We are a real country. We don’t hate each other. We’re angry because we feel we can’t make a difference in our financial status or communities. Opportunity has literally been snatched from our grasp. Because of fear, doors- as in opportunity, as well as the real doors to our homes and businesses… like our favorite restaurants are literally closing every day.

Speaking of closing doors. There is something I would really like to stop and that’s the bold face lies being told by those working for the Democratic Party to confuse you about the Republican policy. Republicans don’t hate gay people and we don’t have an ongoing war against women. We will not make it our focus to repeal gay marriage. Nor will we make it our focus to repeal Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, in case you were curious, none of our policies make the environment more polluted or the globe warmer either.

If that’s what you are afraid of, then you aren’t living in the real world. That’s where the Republicans and I live. I’m going to be real honest with you right now. So listen up. Our focus is saving the economy right now. Without an economy, we can’t do jack. That’s just the way it is. All the smart cars and healthcare in the world won’t save us if our economy collapses. This is what Republicans stand for right now. We will fix this problem carefully and methodically. To do this, despite popular belief, Republicans will not throw Granny off a cliff. I don’t even know how those actors got that wheelchair with granny up there. No, seriously. In fact, we only plan to cut spending on Medicaid by 3% compared to what Obama wants to spend. That’s hardly reducing grandma to eating cat food. In fact, once we get rid of Obamacare we can put the 716 billion Obama’s plan steals from seniors back in the Medicare pot. Another fact is that if we continue with Obama’s healthcare plan, Medicare for seniors will be completely insolvent in 12 years.

The model we are looking at for offering everyone a healthcare choice is doing better in use than we ever anticipated. It has cost 43% less than what we thought it would cost to implement and young people get to choose whether they want Medicare run by the government or get the equivalent of that cost to use towards a private insurance of their choice. This will drive the cost down with the good old’ American way. Competition. Competition means choice for everyone. Competition, in case you were wondering, isn’t the same as fighting each other.

If we can hold onto our thoughtless blurts of disgust and spontaneous angry reactions to the little stuff for just a while, we find we aren’t that upset after all. When we don’t waste the time responding to every word each other say with anger, we listen to the other guy a little more and understand where they are coming from a little bit better. Americans don’t ask each other whether we are rich or poor when we are fighting for our country. It’s not our style. We may not agree, but a compromise can surely be explored a lot easier on that safer frontier.

We built this country together. It seems like we haven’t built anything in a long time. That’s what it feels like. I know we can build a great future together. Would you rather let the government say they’ll come up with something to help you out and you don’t need to worry about what it is or what it costs? Or would you rather be involved by learning from and working with your countrymen to build something you believe in? I know, in fact I will guarantee you, as a successful business man who honestly cares about each and every one of you, if we all work harder, if we all work harder on working together we’ll all be a lot richer.

Stand with me. Support me and the other Republicans in your state. Don’t let them close more doors on opportunity. Let’s make more doors of opportunity! Thank you and God Bless America.

It is a close race and Romney is leading in some areas. This should not be the case this early in the game. Suddenly Obama’s swagger isn’t buying him much political capital these days or hiding the pit tang dripping from his shirt either. Like Facebook, I think he’s peaked. He’s done, according to experts like Dick Morris author of Screwed. If you didn’t already know, Dick ranks up there as one belonging in the “always right” category and is typically unbiased in his revelations. He used to be a former Clinton advisor so he knows all about their dirty deeds and how they fit into the scheme of Obama’s political demise too.

The crystal clear vision that many trusted analysts like Dick see ahead is that Obama’s cronyism is going to bite him in the ass when he needs it least. It has already burned him several times, but he usually just throws whoever has been caught doing something crazy under the bus. Fox News covers the roadkill for a while and then it’s over.

Recently though, the bad entourage choices are piling up and they’re gaining the attention of those who don’t even watch Fox News. For example, one of his major supporters a Democratic Congressman by the name of Danny Davis, In the 112th Congress. Representative Davis serves on Oversight and Government Reform Committee and is Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives and serves on the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal, Labor. The Congressman also serves on the Homeland Security Committee where his subcommittee assignments are the Subcommittee on Transportation and the Subcommittee on Oversight. Congressman Davis is a member of several Congressional Caucuses including the Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Urban Caucus, the Community Health Center’s Caucus, and the Congressional Sugar Caucus.

He is a very busy dude. He also happens to openly attend meetings with and receive kudos from the Communist Party USA. He was a keynote speaker at their event in February where he spoke out against the Tea Party organization. When asked about his involvement by a person who said he was a concerned citizen, not just a reporter, on camera Davis said flat-out “well, if you are just an ordinary citizen why would you be concerned about my involvement with the Communist Party?” Really? Who would say such things and risk boldly participating in the Communist organization, whilst still in the highest favor of Obama and the Democratic Party? Someone who has been promised a seat at the big Socialist table, that’s who. That is, if they can make it that far without getting caught doing f’d up things for the benefit of the left-wing socialist agenda.

Another example, on a much more serious scale, President Obama hired people like Tom Donilon. Yah, I think that’s his name. He is by nature a publicist or something like that, but Obama hired him as his National Security Advisor. You’d think not a good combo, right? I’m just sayin’. They think this is the guy that is leaking the classified information to make Obama look good. Makes sense right? An example of this is right after they killed Osama bin Laden someone leaked to the NY Times that it was Obama working close hand with Seal Team 6 that did it. A few months later the chopper carrying Seal Team 6 members was shot out of the sky. Then there’s the Pakistani doctor to Osama bin Laden who was promised asylum if he helped us get OBL. Not only did someone forget to pick his ass up with an armored helicopter, his name was somehow leaked to the NY Times. Since then Pakistan has thrown him in a prison somewhere and sentenced him to 30 years. We can’t get him out. There’s also a Russian diplomat we used and is now in the same boat I think. All of this, according to the NY Times, came from someone very close to Obama in the White House. Obama had the gall to say “To think someone in MY Whitehouse would leak this type of information is just (ridiculous).” I forgot the word he used, but he’s about to eat it none the less.

Supposedly, they have started an investigation to find out who exactly the leak is so that they can throw him under the bus too but, unfortunately it doesn’t matter who the leak was. The leak was ordered by Obama’s mouth. That’s all you need to know about how much concern he has for National Security. They’ll probably draw that investigation out until they think it doesn’t matter to voters anymore just like they are doing with the “Fast and Furious” case.

If you don’t know about that one, Attorney Gen. Eric Holder is playing dumb in regards to a bunch of American guns being sold to Mexican cartels as part of a sting operation gone badly. According to officials, the guns were apparently not tracked correctly and told to be forgotten about by someone in the Obama Administration. Sure enough they ended up being the weapons used to murder an American investigator among others. Holder cannot explain where the documents he is supposed to give in accordance to the Senate’s subpoena are exactly. It’s ridiculous. So, they are about to file contempt charges on him, the first African-American Attorney General appointed by the one and only President Obama.

Further adding to his demise is the disintegration of the African-American support base. They began with the racism Pseudos I suspect the moment they realized African-Americans were starting to un-identify with the ultra-left wing policies of the administration. African-Americans tend to be Democrats, but they are not for the most part liberal. This has been a tricky dance for the Obama Administration all along, but I think their starting to stumble as they continue to concoct dividing issues. The White House and anonymous supporters then not so discretely use the media to follow (over-expose) crimes against African-Americans only, and also tend to comment on crimes involving African-Americans. This has left a familiar bad taste in REAL leaders of minority communities. They don’t like being used for political gain, because they are the ones that really get hurt. Stirring up race is a pointless and vicious method to use on the part of the Democratic strategists because it causes more unnecessary hate and distrust among the poorer, already struggling communities than they can handle. You think Obama gives a damn? They are so disappointed he is not elevating them, but instead using the black race as a political wildcard that they are flat-out not going to vote for him again.

Point in case… Michigan. Michigan, political Zion for the unions and solid Democratic blue policies is turning purple. Yes. Recently over half of those polled in Michigan says they will be voting Republican next year. This, even when Obama’s one claim to success is bailing out the American automobile industry. I believe it is a sign they know that he did not make them successful, they did. Yes he approved the money, but they went over and beyond to show that they could make a turn-around if only they were given the full on slot of resources they needed. (Money, they’d had in the beginning if they didn’t constantly give in to Union pressures.) Could Michigan be the poster child for real change?

And the icing on the cake, a couple of days ago Obama says this in regards to the economy: “The private sector is doing fine.” Then further “it’s the public sector that needs more help.” The first part apparently doesn’t include the part of the private sector that is all the American citizens that can’t find work. The second part just points out that he obviously wants to spend more money to create/replace more public sector/government jobs as best method to get the economy back on track. He is a one trick pony as Mary Katherine Ham said, and we’re all getting bored.

All this boils down to is the apparent separation between Obama’s supporters and those who really want the best for our country. Loyalty to any general base of race or gender is no longer the ace up Obama’s sleeve, as both former entities and individuals that see his goals for what they really are are moving right and taking their votes with them.

What I’m about to write may be a little presumptuous. My best friend told me when we were kids that someday my mouth would get me in trouble. Honestly, I don’t really think this is it.

It kind of reminds me of this horrible semester long research paper I had to write in college, a requirement to graduate called the Capstone Paper. You had to pick a social issue you think something should be done about and propose a solution. The thing was, you couldn’t write about any of the red letter subjects like abortion or… abortion. I figure they didn’t want us to waste our time writing about something they knew we just weren’t equipped to talk about much less find answers for at our level of experience. So, I finally got them to let me write about homelessness. Ha! Hey, I like complicated. I thought I had some pretty good points but the guy grading me didn’t exactly see it my way. I couldn’t for the life of me understand why he didn’t like anything I had to say. I had basically written on the same subject in another course and received rave reviews. This guy wanted to give me an “F” like something awful. Needless to say, I lost my Suma Cum Laude status. Finally, I remembered a moment at the beginning of the course when the professor was trying to get to know everyone. Seeing I was a big fan of automobiles he asked me my opinion on buying a new Corvette and I gave him my honest opinion. I told him Corvettes suck and he should buy a Porsche. Well, at the time it was pretty much true. I don’t think he ever smiled at me again after that statement. I learned the hard way that sometimes you just have to keep your mouth shut no matter what you think you know or what you think you’ll help by being totally and completely honest. (Hopefully I’m not talking about me at this juncture.) But anyhow, speaking of losing status and people who get kicked to the curb…

Poor Sandra Fluke, just the latest victim of the Democratic National Committee machine. If there was ever a dangerously crazy fraternity on campus it would be the far-left Democrats. Isn’t it just like them to sacrifice a child for their own quest for power? Well, maybe not a child, I meant virgin. No, I meant…umm…hmmm…young woman who looks like a virgin, maybe? The point is this young woman may have totally screwed her future by following these people into what is clearly just a cheap attempt to get the vote of the young and the restless. Wow. Was that worth it? Talk about wham bam thank you ma’am. Her image of a serious individual for representing, women’s health law has probably been seriously damaged. She clearly doesn’t know crap about women’s actual needs. I’m not even sure she knows the definition of need. Georgetown Law? Really?

Kind of like that chick who came on Mr. Sean Hannity’s show in defense of the latest bus victim, Fluke. Right off the bat Tamara Holder rebuts one of Sean’s opening comments with “Well, that’s because I’m a smart liberal, Sean.” Then throughout the interview she went on to say with little finesse whatsoever, that she readily equates entitlement with our constitutional rights. Despite his disappointment, Sean was very polite I have to say. When you know good and well he wished he could throw that football right at her head.

Another guest on Mr. Bill O’Reilly’s Factor proceeded to say how all of the conservative Republicans were spouting language that indicated a “war on women”. She emphasized “all of them” several times. But when Mr. O’Reilly asked her to give just one example, she sat there stunned, quiet. Then he gave her an easier question. “Give me one example of Romney saying something against women.” Again, cricket sounds. She finally was able to utter something to the effect that she liked Romney …but that he never has spoken out against the Republicans [and their apparent war on women]. Don’t they know they are going to be asked to back up their statements? Don’t they know they look absolutely ridiculous when they sit there with their mouths wide open aggrandized by their flanking Farrah Fosset hair? If there is a war on women, these women are traitors to our cause. They all by themselves make us look like the weaker sex.

No disrespect to Rosie and Ms. Houston, but what on earth were you girls smoking before you had your little televised tea party? Why would you go out there and say that there is a war on women “in this day and age”? You mean in the day and age where women are freely allowed to live whatever lifestyle as a woman they choose? Seriously, you’re going to take up arms and say there is a war on women because you think contraception is too expensive? Did I miss something?

What about a war on women because fertility drugs are too expensive? Fertility treatments or medications to help women get pregnant (whether they need them or not) aren’t covered at all by insurance. This is because fertility is viewed as a luxury item, not any kind of medical necessity. Well, I’m here to say that as a woman, I think having babies means just as much to me as not having them. Besides, these “fertility” drugs are a medical necessity in many cases, just as the contraceptives are being argued to be. Wouldn’t you think that should be included on this discussion of women’s health being neglected and further for that matter, shouldn’t we really discuss who is at the bottom of not providing shall we say a more well-rounded form of women’s healthcare?

If the Republican Party advisors (huh-hum, Karl) had any sense whatsoever, they would use this blatant misuse of a college kid to their advantage. This is a dodge ball you can catch! Come on, if some people are really going to use women’s health as a campaign strategy how about doing something that actually concerns women’s health. And if you really want to earn more than just the votes of women and earn the hearts of women, you should use the power of the Republican Party to actually do something to change the way we truly look at women’s health so that it benefits us when it is appropriate for us. This is one way they can do that.

Republicans should turn the issue of women’s health right back on these entitlement policy pushing people by pointing out that the availability of contraception and abortion to women, especially young ones is not where the government and insurance companies are lacking service. There is a gap in women’s healthcare and there does seem to be some pretty anti-woman sentiment going on behind it, but it’s not coming from conservative Republicans. It comes from ultra-feminist who want an absolute equivocation between the sexes no matter what the cost. Like I said, I’m not a genius but, I’m guessing they don’t belong to the conservative Republican Party.

When I started hearing all this Pseudos about women’s health needs not being met because they were not going to be provided contraception drugs through their church-based employer or school, I thought what a ridiculous waste of media attention. Look, I’m not smart enough to get into Georgetown Law but I know that is like the last thing women are really in a pickle about when it comes to their health, specifically. It’s especially so when you can go and get those things at alternative locations for little to no cost, insurance or no. Do they want it delivered to their dorm or something …with a cookie no less?

If those who are trying to promote change in America’s healthcare in general were so interested in the availability of excellent women’s healthcare, why do they no longer equate good health with fertility? For thousands of years the epitome of a healthy woman was a fertile woman. Somehow that’s all changed. Specifically in business, specifically in insurance companies and I doubt very sincerely that it has anything to do with cost/profit margin.

Here’s an example. If you have a complicated pregnancy, that’s one thing, but in general, if you need some help having a baby with fertility drugs, or if you want to have any extra monitoring of a healthy baby during pregnancy, it is absolutely not covered by any health insurance of any brand. It seems the policy is this way because their stand is that if you want children, that is a luxury item and therefore you should have to pay for them. What they fail to realize is by this policy, they are neglecting many young women that need drugs that are considered “fertility drugs” even though they are to treat diseases like endometriosis. The goal is to not have to get pregnant actually, even though the only said “cure” for endometriosis is pregnancy. They’re just trying to keep the cancerous-like endometrial tissue at bay until they are someday ready to have surgery or get pregnant.

There is hardly anyone who doesn’t know someone who is suffering or has suffered from endometriosis. Scientists don’t know if this has always been prevalent among women, but they all concur this is a very widespread and an increasingly more serious disease among women. Not to put too fine a point on this but, this is a real, major health issue among women, especially college age women, and I bet something they would be very interested in their political representatives getting involved in.

Many women like me at that age just want to finish college, but between the pain, the surgeries and lack of coverage it is almost impossible. However, if women do not do something to remove the endometriosis at an earlier stage, it in many cases can cause serious problems and at the very least lead to very low chances of pregnancy later on in life.

At any rate, many college age women with this very common disease are faced with few choices. They can pay full price for these extremely expensive drugs in lieu of tuition, food and rent. Or they could drop out of school and go ahead and start a family if they can find a dude ready and willing (and hopefully with a job). Or they can do nothing and let the disease invade. So why is this issue for insurance companies? What’s the big deal? Why won’t they just write in a little sub clause thing-a-majiggy (that’s the word I’ll use to get into Georgetown Law) so that these truly in need women can be covered for these “fertility drugs” when they medically need them?

My theory is that no matter how you make the case, insurance companies will not cover such drugs because in order to do so, they would have to change their definition of fertility in reference to a woman’s health. Suspiciously, they are obviously not interested in changing this policy for the benefit of women or for any other reason. I just wonder. Do you think it is coincidental that insurance companies’ policies and the policies and views of the far left of the liberal Democratic Party are so much inline? They both take non-religious stands on medical issues. They both seem to treat men and women equally as far as what they are entitled to (which brings up a point I will bring up later). And most recently they also both seem to take the stand that contraception for all is a more pertinent issue to women’s health than the actual medical needs and care of women, especially women wanting to have children someday.

I believe this relates directly to the ultra-feminists agenda and directly in opposition to women’s civil rights. I know that is a big statement, but scientifically it is a fact that this current policy of having an all or nothing approach to women’s health in order to protect a hidden agenda of equality or for any reason is harmful to women. I believe they are harming more than they realize.

This in a way seems to be stunting the growth of families who have mothers who attend college. If young women can’t go to college or have to drop out of college they will not have health insurance. Medicare does not cover experts on how to create longevity in fertility. If women continue to wait to have children after college or even after they get their career going, they naturally have a lower chance of conceiving a child. Combine that situation with women who have diseases like endometriosis. If they get pregnant young, but do not go to college they will not have a good income much less health insurance unless they get married. If there is a lot of pain involved and they cannot work or go to college… well, you do the math. You’ve got a lot of non-educated, not working, pregnant women and you also have a lot of educated successful women, but who have no ability to have children. Instead of going towards a future where we have more freedom to do as we choose we are losing a battle to something we cannot control before we even get started. Again why is contraception our biggest problem here? I think this is a distraction; literally something they pulled out of a sack of things to do to harm the Republican Party. The real issue is and has everything to do with wanting to keep conservatives away from the issue of abortion. If they can get conservative Republicans to tuck tail and run just on the issue of conception there’s no way Santorum or anyone else will bring up abortion. I believe someone pulled that because they are scared we are close to figuring something out.

What I’m about to say is not because I think insurance companies will begin to care or will change their “minds” because of what I’m saying. The following has a point in reference to how you get insurance companies to “care” about their business enough to change their policy.

Historically I believe the only effective mediums that ever really change people’s cultural perspective is martyrdom, the media or big business. The first one, martyr- well, those are a little hard to come by these days (in America anyway) and let’s just say they don’t come “on demand”. The second isn’t really a creative medium and shouldn’t be used for political problem solving. Well it shouldn’t be anyway if we’re talking about real news media, real journalists being the source and most specifically when the subject is the insanely delicate issue of abortion. So news/entertainment media, that’s out for convincing us of the truth. That leaves big business. How interesting. What in the world kind of big business could ever change the face of the “thing that appears in a woman after she has sex sometimes” A.K.A. a fetus? If you said insurance companies then yes, you guessed it.

Insurance companies are businesses and they do not speak the language of care. Apparently extreme leftists and feminists or both have been able to communicate with them quite well, but conservatives although a little slow on the uptake, can play that game too. Hey, insurance companies are not politically biased. Good health to them equals good money. If they have good enough reasons to start giving some sort of legal descriptions of the fetus and how the fetus affects a woman’s health, good or bad this would indicate a fetus is not just a benign object. This may mean the fetus would no longer be considered something that can just be operated on or elected to be removed as other benign parts of a woman’s body are. Insurance companies believe it or not, may be the key to saving millions of unwanted babies from elective abortion.

Many women are harmed physically and mentally by abortions, but do not talk about it, much less report it to anyone. There are some very deep seeded reasons why women are so private and protected when it comes to the functions of their bodies. Who can blame us when our whole menstruating lives we’ve been told by our fathers, boyfriends and husbands “I don’t want to know!” It’s definitely complicated and probably never going to change. From the dye in our hair to the corns on our feet, it’s all personal. I hate to equate it with this scenario but it’s kind of like a woman seeking to have plastic surgery and she goes to this guy that a friend of a friend who says can give her a “deal”. You know what happens next. Surprise! You’ve got malboobification and no, there’s no deal on a redo. How likely is she to do anything about it? Sure she may scream at the doctor, but go to the public to warn other women? Not likely.

Unfortunately by the same token women who want to keep their abortion private go to great links to keep it private. Businesses that rely on patients who want abortions for non-medical reasons especially, can count on this silence to run their practice as they please. Is this why Roe v. Wade became the law. We needed abortion to be legal so women could be safer. Wasn’t it so women didn’t have to worry about going to some shady place, devoid of information and any semblance of real medical care/after care? You’re lucky if they remind you to bring a pillow to sit your raw biscuit on afterwards.

Doctors take a Hippocratic Oath to never use their knowledge to harm anyone. The only way abortion is considered ethical and therefore legal is because by current legal statements the fetus remains a “benign” part of a woman’s body. In other words, the fetus is regarded as a part of a woman’s body that is neither harmful nor beneficial to her health wise, so therefore it is medically ethical to remove a fetus if a woman so chooses. If that perspective were to ever change, however… For example if a non-medical, non-political, non-religious entity were to establish a different perspective that a fetus was not benign, the opposition to abortion may not be seen as a religious/moral issue any longer, but a medically ethical issue as well as a financial issue. Let me explain.

If liberal Democrats want abortion to continue to be referred to as a real medical procedure that benefits women then they need to find a way to make it as such; giving a woman any and all information they can possibly comprehend in order for them to make a choice they can live with.

Ironically “Pro-Choice” Dems don’t want this either for several reasons. If you start giving information about abortion a lot of people will stop having abortions. If you show women a sonogram of the fetus a lot more women will elect not to have abortions. But most importantly, and the bottom line will always be this: if ever there is a legal precedent set saying that there are ever different health/based scenarios where an abortion should be legal v. illegal, liberal feminists would lose the argument that a fetus has nothing to do with a woman’s health.

If insurance companies start paying attention to fertility they may have to disclose the harmful effects of having an abortion procedure in reference to future pregnancies and also the common mental side effects attributed to undergoing an abortion. They may also inadvertently establish a precedent that having a fetus inside means more to a woman’s health than previously thought and therefore an insurance company’s bottom line.

There probably will never be a way to change the law to say abortion should only be in cases of medical emergency much less abolishing abortion all together. This may be disappointing to those who do solely base their beliefs against abortion on their religious beliefs, but I say let your heart not be troubled. There is still a way to have some satisfactory success in the real war against women.

So, scientifically speaking…the insurance company asks…does pregnancy actually benefit a woman’s health? So I did a little research. The answer is yes and no, but this is a good thing and I’ll tell you why. (I should have a white board for this.) Okay. Turns out if you have one baby or more than two babies the answer is no, actually. Three or more kids are not beneficial to a woman’s health? Imagine that. Not sure why having one is not so good for your health; other than I can guess there were maybe health and/or financial stresses that were there in the first place. Having three or more children seems to be harder on the body and mind for obvious reasons (with the exception of the breasts being more immune to breast cancer).

Two however, seem to be the magic number. Aside from instinctive good comforting feeling we get from having the chance to pass on our legacy onto offspring, they say two children also add more joy and stress relief to a family than not. More specific to a woman’s physical wellbeing, if a she breastfeeds during her pregnancy those two times, it reduces her chances of breast cancer.

Insurance companies therefore, should consider a policy more friendly to fertility than not. Mr. Rove, you could architect a plan for the Republican Party to help. In my opinion a good policy for them would be to simply offer to cover fertility drugs for women with less than two children. This would cover young women who had endometriosis and those women who medically could not get pregnant up to two children without medical help. It would cover women who were truly interested in fertility drugs because they had health problems not because they wanted to have a million babies at once. In essence once you have two babies you are no longer covered for fertility drugs. This would motivate people on two levels, (financially and health wise) to keep their families smaller. More healthy and smaller families? This should make insurance companies drool… in a good way.

This in my opinion is something the Republicans could really use to get their spirit back. A spirit that has been lost I believe, due to the constant rebuke from those who equate people of religious backgrounds as those who argue outside of reality. Conservatives are tired of being beaten in arguments before they even argue simply because of what liberals say is the basis of all conservative beliefs. Religion is not the basis for all conservative beliefs but for some reason red letter subjects like abortion especially, cannot be discussed at all if those on the right are in the discussion. And those on the right don’t speak at all about these subjects because they are afraid people will think all they want to do is have the country conform to their religious beliefs. This is the damage of pseudos!!!

So let’s not try to fight liberals with emotional pleas. Trust me. They’ve got the bleeding hearts of America emotional arguments and drama in the bag. If we continue to go that route we will surely lose. Speak the language of the insurance company’s and you will find a way to make as much “change” with them as the Dem’s apparently are able to make. You can use the young women’s disappointment in the insurance companies and government just as leftists have. But you will win with the argument that you really understand what young women are going through regardless of their religion or personal lifestyle. Women deserve more than to be told they need contraceptives to live healthy lives and you realize that they need security for their future. Whether that means contraceptives today or a family tomorrow, they need to know or maybe they do know that there may be nothing left for them as far as Medicare and social security by the time they need it. This may be why they are going towards a more “entitlement” society as they try to get all the free shit they can while they can. which is why they may vote for someone like Obama. Then point out though, that voting for Obama probably won’t really lead to any free entitlements and that it will actually only make everything (free shit included) harder and harder to get if not disappear altogether. In fact, voting for someone who insists on encouraging an entitlement society will only cause the quality of women’s healthcare to get worse.

Does anyone know what’s going on here? Do you know how many Republicans have decided that they are too tired to watch any of the Republican debates or any kind of news about the campaign anymore? Try like everyone. All I know is I’m more than turned off and it’s not because of the ugliness like sweet Mrs. Bush Sr. says. I don’t think it’s all that bad considering baggage does need to be aired. You don’t want bed bugs creeping into your house later. You know what I’m saying? I think she just said that because that’s what old ladies say when they can’t say “this is a fuck”. Pardon my French. I think she feels like many of us do, that we may have the wrong candidates in the lead and we’re not quite sure what to do about it.

But the great thing is, it’s not totally over! Now that the “ugliness” is relatively passed us, we should re-look at our candidates, don’t you think? This kind of illusion that it’s down to two candidates Romney and Santorum is merely that, an illusion. For one, I don’t want us to think this race is over because we’re clearly not happy with who we are going towards choosing as the Republican candidate. It’s pretty obvious that that is the main reason why Republicans are sick of watching. We’ve got to that point again where we have gone through the traditional motions, gotten towards the end of that process and realized we’ve got a product we don’t want. The Republican Party can’t admit they’re going the wrong direction when they’re trying to win the election despite who the front running candidate is. The Republican win is the main goal. I know this.

But maybe the main goal of choosing the right Republican candidate should be getting the right candidate for what happens after the election in 2012. I think the candidates were correct in the beginning when they all said if you elect any of us it would be better than letting President Obama continue to be the president for four more years. I still agree with that. What I think is happening now is kind of like… Well, have you ever been baking something new and you follow the recipe, you followed everything that the recipe said exactly. You get to the end of it and it’s nothing like you thought it would be. It doesn’t taste good, it’s falling apart and you’ve got a party to serve. How embarrassing.

We’ve faithfully depended on our process of choosing a candidate and here we are getting towards the end and oh no… we can tell it’s starting to look funny. Frankly, I think Romney scares the hell out of most of us. And Santorum is just so …Magoo. I don’t know what else to say. We have gotten ourselves into a process that when you come right down to it is not a good recipe. The recipe is very much a beauty contest or a popularity contest and it likens itself to a lot like a High School Class President election. But wait a minute, we don’t really just want to elect someone we think is the most popular or who we see is going to be a winner do we? This can’t be about seeing ourselves standing next to what looks like a guaranteed winner. That’s Pseudos.

The real candidate for an American President is someone who still carries that old-school-American, Reaganistic spirit we love and miss. We need someone who can be calmly strong and who can be smart in high pressure situations. You know what? I think this man we’re looking for is a nerd, and an arrogant one at that. The one none of us liked in High School and in fact the exact opposite of who we would vote for class president. But see, we’re all grown up now and we can appreciate the need for someone who is completely confident in his intelligence and bold with his ideas of fixing this joint. If you’ve ever had to deal with an engineer you know this simple rule: don’t ask an engineer to fix something if you can’t deal with the correct way to fix something. We really need to set our pride aside and start paying attention to the person we would go to for real answers; especially if we needed them in a pinch.

It’s funny, but when people believe their time is short, they put all stereotypes and prejudices aside to get to what is important. When we’re failing math and we’re about to be kicked off the team, who do we go to for study help? Who’s the one we have to go to when we were too lazy to do the homework? Who always has the vocabulary list for the quiz? The nerd.

Of course I’m talking about Newt Gingrich. If you don’t think Newt’s a nerd, more power to you, but please note that this means you too are a nerd. J Newt is the guy that has worked his butt off all his life and has been getting the straight A’s. He has been paying attention, he’s been taking the notes, he’s been taking the crap too and still, we’re not willing to give the nerd some credit? Hey, this is America. We’re not like that. Our country of America is the country that holds up the nerd with pride. Revenge of The Nerds is one of our classic movies for a reason. There are those who still hold Booger up there as one of their all-time favorite, All-American heroes just based on his burping talent, among other things. You know who you are. Let’s do this! Let’s raise up the appreciation of nerd abilities this day because what we need now is someone who knows how to do some basic accounting, some basic economics, some basic history and maybe some basic science would be good too. The thing about nerds is they revel in a challenge, in the unexpected. They are successful because they have the mindset to completely surprise people with something spectacular when the people whole-heartedly expected the opposite.

Hold the phone. Wait a minute here. Newt is no Booger. He’s actually got some pretty cool skills that make him a super nerd. Like Clark Kent! He’s a diplomat. Not many nerds are diplomats. He’s got a great sense of humor. Not many nerds have senses of humor. He’s got a hot wife. Not many nerds have that. Needless to say, he’s got good qualities people and I think we need to start thinking about this seriously in these last few races. This is no time to bail out on the process. They can matter. We need to make this cake work and can if we can get around to doing something about what we really want for the future. Not just about what we think is good for the popular election, I should say. You should be very worried when the main stream media starts endorsing a certain Republican and it also just so happens to be the same way we’re going in our process of elimination. To search for who will be the most popular or electable is just following into the Democratic Party’s ways of life. That does not get us anywhere.

We’ve got two Republican candidates that all day debate about who is the most conservative. Meanwhile, we’re thinking uh, Romney and Santorum are both too damn conservative. Preaching to the choir is an understatement. They continue to show us they believe that we will not elect someone who may be a little bit of an underdog. Actually, this is a quality in candidates Americans tend to empathize with more. President Obama is a direct result of that. Apparently Republican campaign advisors think the Republican Party is all about being conservative and I think they’ve missed the mark completely. The majority of swing votes are going to come from the middle to left of the Republican and Independent voters. I’d be sad to think this concentration on conservativism was not just a fight against President’s liberal policies but also someone’s single-handed wet dream of eliminating the purpose of the Tea Party all together with this election as well. That could be a very costly mistake.

Albeit I think if we happen to elect someone who is super conservative I don’t believe they can ever get us to the point where all mainstream views are threatened. Because we are way the hell over to left and getting kind of out-of-control, it would probably just swing us enough over to the right to make us more in the middle.

Newt by all means is what I would consider your average conservative. I don’t see how his baggage is much different than many Republicans I know. We all have a history full of mistakes. (That’s how we get to be so wise.) And since we’ve gotten over Newt Gingrich’s history of his many divorces, his obvious stray from conservatism, I think we’re definitely steering in clearer waters. Seriously, is that’s all you got? A man who has lived in Washington DC for as long as he lived and that’s all you got? He’s a freakin’ angel.

Newt Gingrich reminds me of America. He is smart. He is observant and is maybe not necessarily who you want to like. Kind of like the nerd you want to just stick in a locker sometimes because he so arrogant about what he knows in that big ol’ Q-tip head of his. He kind of goes off on these tangents where we can’t follow. So we think, is he trying to make us feel stupid? That’s essentially why we don’t like nerds, but in this case we really need that. We need someone who’s ability to think out-of-the-box surpasses the average individual. I have not seen that from Romney. I’ve not seen not that from Santorum. Even as the leader, Romney tends to do what he knows is popular and what you know he needs to do to get the job done systematically. I don’t see him doing anything that inspires me or inspires our country.

I don’t see Santorum inspiring our country to the point where we are all on the same page. I think he already has gotten himself into the conundrum of causing division just by simply falling into some of these traps that the left wing media has laid for him. Newt is the one person who has shined on both of those points in that he has not repelled/excluded anyone with his personal beliefs and he’s caused people to be inspired. You’ve seen that with the two standing ovations. (Now I think he’s trying not to get them for the thought that they may start to look contrived.) And he has also been the only one to be able to show some kind of balls when it comes to standing up to the media. Those three things alone say this is our dude. We need someone who’s going to help us step out of this left wing media charged box of self-imprisonment. Let’s not govern ourselves by the Middle East’s, the European, the East’s, the west coast’s or the east coast’s opinions and prejudices of us. We can no longer afford to do that.

The real candidate for an American President is someone who still carries that old-school Reaganistic spirit we love and miss; someone who can be strong and who can be smart in pressure situations. You know what? I think this man we’re looking for is a nerd, and an arrogant one at that. We need someone who is completely confident in his intelligence and bold with his ideas of fixing this joint.

And the only man who is shown any kind of inkling of an ability to do that is Newt Gingrich and we have little time to show him and the country that he is our man. So if you’re out there and you’re able to vote or you’re able to do something about this please root for Newt!

I think a Newt Gingrich/Perry or a Gingrich/Palin ticket would be strong… to very strong. In a way, a Gingrich/Palin ticket would maybe remind Americans they had a second chance to erase the mistake they made last time. I’m just sayin’. Some said that Palin was the reason why McCain lost the election in ‘08, but we all know that wasn’t it. The left-wing media just said that to try and take down a female conservative and the McCain campaign needed a convenient scapegoat for failure. The overall reason McCain lost the election for Republicans was the overwhelming weakness the people began to see in him.

Unfortunate as it was, at the same time Palin was announced his running mate, McCain suddenly became very vulnerable looking on conservative issues as well as appearing weak in his physical health. Both attributed to his appearance of being the weaker candidate when compared with Obama. I think again the Republican campaign advisers missed the mark on what our idea of what we as Americans (not as individuals) identify with.

McCain campaigned as the hero that he is. Unfortunately, not all American heroes are built alike when it comes to what the American people see as heroes they would want as the President. Americans are actually more taken with the ordinary American hero more so than the P.O.W. super-sacrificial soldier hero of lore. Of course we hold our military, our soldiers to the highest degree of honor and standards for that matter, but then again we don’t hold ourselves to that standard. I think we all tend to want to have a President that is a hero but also somebody we can still identify with. He or she needs to have the appearance of having walked in our shoes for a bit. Romney does not fit this shoe, and Santorum seems to be wearing elf shoes. It may not be the truth, but what the people are seeing in this case does matter.

This generation of Republicans identify with the real beneficial “change” that took place in the late 80’s and also with Americans that remind them of a more Reaganesque time. I think Gingrich has got that hands down and that Sarah Palin adds no weakness or loftiness to the image whatsoever. Americans are leaders not followers. Some of our leaders just happen to be nerds. Go Newt! Go!

In the old days you could look at a person’s face and tell they were lying to you. That’s where we get the old phrase “look me in the eye and tell me you’re not lying.” Because we used to feel bad about telling a lie to someone’s face. Now days our culture has learned that little secret and we simply use it to lie better. For example, the other day my daughter was four, almost five. She is telling a story. She’s very talented with her words and she makes up fun little imaginative stories (like her mama). But whenever she gets to a subject that’s maybe inappropriate, for example she says something to the effect of, I had a little friend named Jane and she died. I usually tell her that it’s not nice to talk about someone who died. I said, “That’s not really a fun story. How about we tell about a happy story?” And she says, “No mommy it’s not a story. It’s the truth.” In the back of my mind I’m thinking, Dear Lord my child is about to say she sees dead people. So I take a deep breath and I tell her I know for a fact that she doesn’t know anyone at her school that died the other day and because of that fact I know she’s not telling the truth. But the scariest part was that at this time she gets very adamant that there was a person by this name and that it was her friend who died and it was at school, huff, huff, huff. She was so convincing about her fictional story I became worried that she was developing a skill that makes lying not any different in her book then telling a story she just wished was the truth or even something as innocent as letting her very vivid imagination take over.

When I confronted her more sternly about the lie she became even more adamant and probably worried I guess more about the consequences of what she had said rather than the fact that she was telling me something that wasn’t true with a lot more conviction than I was comfortable with. She could’ve been telling me that there was a purple rhinoceros at her school making cookies and it wouldn’t have made a difference. The way that she looked at me and then started crying in her boldface lie made me pause. What can you do? Honestly. Your angel, poo-bear, little baby, wonderful girl is telling a story like Stephen King which is both inspiring and admiral but at the same time the conviction behind it is questionable. Either it’s entertaining to her or something far more manipulative. Either way I want to make sure she knows what manipulative language like lies do.

That got me thinking about what a friend had told me when I first started writing Pseudos 101. He told me “Well, if were talking about false and lies, you may have to define truth.” I thought, oh crap. I wasn’t a philosophy major. Why the hell would anyone want to study that? Anything attempting to tell people what is the absolute truth is completely subjective and I believe personal to each individual. How am I to ever convince people of what they believe is the truth? Who does that? My beliefs will never be more than just a story to them. Even the definition of evangelical in the Bible means simply share your story. It does not mean try to convince people your truth is the only truth there is. See, Jesus knew that cake wouldn’t bake.

People are always going to know what they know in their heart to believe based on their own perceptions. We are a conglomeration of prejudices. We hear what we want to hear. We want what we want. We need what we need and we believe what we want to believe. Wars have been waged since man was able to throw his own poop over what each of them believe is the truth. I think my frustration of defining truth for the world is therefore warranted.

What it comes down to is that many think a simple twist of words is hardly something to make a fuss over. We all just occasionally want to have something sound a little better than it really is or look a little better than it really is so we can get a little ahead. We’re just trying to keep up with everyone else. However there is cause to be really worried about lying becoming so common in our marketing, in our government and our judicial system. Not to put too fine a point on it, the way lawyers win cases and the way clients who are on trial conduct themselves morally speaking is becoming deplorable in many instances. That’s just one example. Our culture is in danger of changing the basic instincts we have about what is really dangerous to us.

So maybe we shouldn’t worry about what each other think is the truth. Maybe that plan is moot. And then it hit me. The definition of truth is whatever isn’t false. What we should be worried about is how we from this point on, decipher what is false. Like I said our culture is getting wise to how they manipulate people. We are getting so wise to how we manipulate each other that it almost seems like an instinctive type of survival. And so really what this book is about is helping you identify what is probably false information. If people are getting better at lying then people need to also get better at deciphering lying. Learn to recognize it and learn to stay out of its reach.

Artificiality is specifically a problem because we are becoming more and more saturated in our society by things that are false. Let’s say, anything that is artificial applies to whatever we think of as false in a physical nature or a philosophical manner. At the same time what we consider true in nature because we can feel it, affects what we philosophically feel is true. And we, instead of getting in touch with nature, we are tending to be more often surrounded by environments that are less natural and less concrete to our understanding of what is really real. I guess a good metaphor for this would be how when our 36th President L.B.J. was so entrenched in what you can only imagine is Washington DC’s level of manipulative pressure and how he used to have to escape, literally escape, to the rural countryside in Texas. This is where he claims several times that he felt more in the “real world” than anywhere else. I think he was more in touch with who he really was and his true purpose when was immersed in that wholesome Texas environment. He felt he could come back to the real world when he was in the country and not in D.C. because of this very argument that we can be oversaturated with artificiality. Hence, this is why we need to learn how to protect ourselves from that environment and thus the creation of Pseudos 101.

The base of the Liberal secularist philosophy seems to depict the belief that nothing cataclysmic will ever happen. Please don’t confuse this with their hissy-fit over global warming. Global warming is not an eminent cataclysm that will end all life as we know it. It’s a marketing theme. These people thrive on bleeding heart stories and pessimism, but have the gall to call a conservative who speaks out passionately about America going to hell in a handbasket, over-reacting. They truly believe if something so bad and destructive were to happen, and if it couldn’t be taken care of on the spot with money, they submit to the “we are all f-ed anyway” philosophy. Well, that’s just a brilliant plan!

Do you know that there is a new term for people like me? Yes, I just heard it. There’s actually a new reality show coming out about people like me. Shows how quick on the uptake I am. I’m called a “Prepper.” Yes, that’s short for preparer. You know, as in someone who prepares for the America as we know it to collapse. We are a closet-bound bunch, for the most part. Because, A. The term “survivalist” has a lot of negative stereotypes attached to it these days and B. we don’t want your punk ass showing up at our farm looking for food because you were too stupid and too proud to PREPARE for yourself. Not lazy, just too proud. Well, if you know me, you know I’m not too proud to tell you you’re stupid. I’m used to taking that kind of humiliating action. So here it is.

Go ahead! Live for the moment and don’t worry about the consequences of the future. It’s not a stretch to think a lot of people live based on what they see in movies. I’m guilty of this in some ideological respects but I’m talking about the sheer imitation of people’s behavior in movies. Isn’t it funny how you never see anyone in the movies wearing a seatbelt? I hate to call a director irresponsible for such a minor detail in the scheme of making a whole movie and all. And maybe it’s just me but, I just want to say, don’t they know they are portraying the message over and over again that it is unnecessary to wear your seatbelt and that it also makes you look uncool. Of course they do, because that’s what they think. I think that would be an interesting poll question for Hollywood people. “Do you wear your seatbelt?” (Seriously, please wear a seatbelt even if the people in the movies don’t.) I kid you not, I still hear the argument that if you were to get in a bad accident, you wouldn’t be able to get out in a hurry. Like they’re Indiana Jones or something; headed for the Grand Canyon. Uh, on a road that takes two minutes to go fifty feet maybe that’s how physics rule in Hollywood. Come on. Squish your boobs in the name of safety! Let me let you in on a little secret of real physics. If you’re in a bad accident and not wearing your seatbelt, they’re going to have to hose your ass out of the car. This is a fitting metephore for what happens when Democrats in congress try and tweak the rules and pass something that should never have passed regardless of what precedent that sets for the future use of the Constitution’s flexibility. Either they don’t know or don’t care. Both are highly likely.

Don’t let anyone tell you you’re paranoid or crazy for being safe or prepared for bad things to happen. If there is anything you learn from this book, I hope it is this. Ever hear, “luck favors the prepared”? The message of today towards preppers like me is more like, “What are you? A survivalist or something? Good luck with that.” Whatever happened to the romanticism of a “little survival place in the woods”? Now if you call yourself a “survivalist” or just happen to own a gun, (a big one), you’re a gun toting’, right-wing, white-surpremist, domestic-terrorist, communalist, seclusionist, fundamentalist, f-your-sister red-neck, Bible beater. I once invited all my gal pals to take part in the ladies’ night special at the local indoor gun range. I immediately got a Facebook retort referring me to a guns and violence awareness website. Tisk-tisk on me for suggesting such a horridly violent pastime! Who knew surviving or competition was a bad thing? It’s not like I said it was Happy Hour and then shooting with .45 calliber weapons! Geez. They totally don’t let you do that.

The liberal secularist philosophy says that the modern mode of thought is the only intelligent thought there is. Let me tell you what they’re worried about surviving. They learned about the age of reason in History and I guess were tapped out after that. Is that when they started teaching about Henry Marx? Anyway what you may not have paid attention to because it takes a lot of boring patience to learn, is that there have been intelligent people for thousands of years. Not just recently with the invention of the “smart phone.” Contrary to popular belief, smart people don’t just occur with the advancement of technology. Still, liberal secularists think History and following the laws written by people three hundred years ago (much less a couple thousand years ago) no longer apply to the world of today. They think they know better than those old conservative fogies from so long ago. They believe conservativism is outdated and totally uncool. “A waste of time.” “Not living in reality.” Those are just a couple of things I hear most often by those living hour to hour. “I just got a tattoo for $10!” That’s another one I hear a lot.

I think of it kind of like how a teenager thinks. I can see how living day to day instead can be very exciting and free feeling, but it’s not freedom. You know that “falling feels like flying, even for a little while …” Crazy Heart. I can certainly respect that philosophy some days. I’m a wife and a mother and it’s hard having to make important decisions every single day, all day long. Whether or not I choose to pay attention to what my kids are up to at any given moment can mean life or death for my toddlers. There’s no pressure on earth that can beat that.

Having things taken care of for you like welfare and free healthcare is also not freedom. It’s a death sentence. The more you let someone take care of the needs that you are capable of doing yourself only leads you to become reliant upon and subservient to them. In this case, once the government starts feeding you and giving you free healthcare, treating you like the zoo animal you’ve become; is that when you are really going start working harder? Is that going to make it easier to speak out against your government and/or zookeepers? In both instances the answer historically has been a big fat NO! We work harder when the benefits are as great or greater than the work we put in. No one will work harder if no extra is given for doing so. And if the government were to control say, everything like healthcare, the financial sectors, the automobile industry, the media and education we wouldn’t have a single word to say, would we?

But here we are at the crossroads. We have to choose a Republican to lead us through the dark. An old addege about the blind leading the blind comes to mind, however, we can no longer let the Pseudos message rein that conservatives are just poking fun at powerful liberal people. This complaint from the average quiet American is more than just a yapping response to the insolent left. We are hanging by a thread. This is about handing the decision about our entire ability to control ourselves. Are you ready to say you are the old lady who has fallen and can’t get up? Are you ready for the liberal Democrats to hand you your new nolife alert button to wear around your neck? Don’t worry, it will be intimately involved with all you do, go where ever you go and it’s waterproof! It sounds and looks like the most popular thing to do.

No! Wake up, Matilda! Obama wants to put you in a retirement home no matter how spry you think you are! Cut medicare? Why do that when their just going to make the whole damn thing medicare! Give everybody the prune plan! So, your only 25; don’t you want to live in an old folks home and have them feed you and tell you when to eat your meds? Why would we voluntarily do this? Has half the country already lost their minds? Well…